9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Seniority and promotion of Regional Transport Officers to Deputy Transport Commissioners. 2. Applicability and effect of rules under Article 309 of the Constitution. 3. Validity of promotions under the Andhra Pradesh Transport Service Rules. 4. Timing of the effectiveness of subordinate legislation. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Seniority and Promotion of Regional Transport Officers to Deputy Transport Commissioners The petitioner, along with respondents 2, 3, and 4, were Regional Transport Officers before 22nd November 1966. The petitioner was senior to respondents 2, 3, and 4 on that date. On 22nd November 1966, the second respondent was promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner by G.O.Ms. No. 2516, and on 24th March 1967, the third respondent was promoted as Deputy Transport Commissioner by G.O.Ms. No. 532. Both promotions were on a regular basis. The promotions of respondents 2 and 3 made on a regular basis are the subject-matter of this writ petition. The petitioner contends that his seniority should have been considered for promotion over respondents 2 and 3. 2. Applicability and Effect of Rules Under Article 309 of the Constitution The posts of Deputy Transport Commissioners were sanctioned by G.O.Ms. No. 1257, dated 3rd June 1960, and rules were made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by G.O.Ms. No. 660, dated 31st March 1961. These rules stated that appointments to the post of Deputy Transport Commissioners shall be made by promotion from among the Assistant Secretaries, State Transport Authority, or the Regional Transport Officers. Promotion was to be made on grounds of merit and ability, with seniority considered only where merit and ability were approximately equal. G.O.Ms. No. 660 was superseded by G.O.Ms. No. 1238, dated 28th June 1963, which made the Andhra Pradesh Transport Service Rules, 1958 applicable to the posts of Deputy Transport Commissioners. 3. Validity of Promotions Under the Andhra Pradesh Transport Service Rules The promotion of the second respondent was based on the rules in force at the time, which considered merit and ability over seniority. The promotion of the third respondent on 24th March 1967 was questioned by the petitioner on the grounds that it contravened rule 34(b)(ii) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, which required promotions to be made according to seniority unless there was conspicuous merit and ability. The counter-affidavit by the Government stated that the third respondent was promoted on grounds of conspicuous merit and ability, but the petitioner argued that this statement was an afterthought and not considered by the authorities at the time of promotion. 4. Timing of the Effectiveness of Subordinate Legislation The third respondent contended that the new rules came into force only on 6th April 1967, the date of publication in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, making his promotion on 24th March 1967 valid under the old rules. The court had to determine whether rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution take effect from the date of the Government Order or from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. The court referred to various judgments, including State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George and Harla v. State of Rajasthan, to conclude that subordinate legislation of a general nature takes effect on the date when it is published in the Official Gazette unless the statute provides otherwise. In this case, the Andhra Pradesh Transport Service Rules, 1967, became effective on 6th April 1967, the date of publication in the Gazette. Therefore, the promotion of the third respondent was valid under the old rules. Conclusion The court concluded that the promotion of the third respondent was valid as it was made under the old rules before the new rules came into effect on 6th April 1967. The writ petition was dismissed with costs.
|
